ADVERTISEMENT

18 House Republicans voted against a resolution to support Finland, Sweden joining NATO

I believe nearly all political contributions are public record other than the "dark money" we hear about.

These GOP goobers all need to explain the reason for their vote and not just the popular tagline "we need to spend our tax dollars" on Merica.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Paris
JFC, fvcking sad how many garbage ass posters defend the position of voting no. Should be ashamed.

Edit: Actually ya know what, it‘s fvcking pathetic. How is acquiring more allies in any way, shape, or form bad for the US and democracy? I’ll hang up and listen.
 
Clearly you are incapable of differentiating facts from propaganda.

Isolationism never caused our entry into either world war. Isolationists don’t get involved in wars halfway around the world.

Isolationism didn’t protect American sailors, merchant marines and civilians from getting killed by Germans in world war either.

Sometimes it’s necessary to get involved even if things don’t directly involve you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole
There have been eight NATO engagements. The United States has led NATO into all of them.
 
No. It’s never necessary to get involved. Our masters get involved because there’s money to be made.

I pity you if that's your view of the world. If good men do not stand up to evil, what hope does the world have?

I suppose you think we should have sat out WW2 also.

I'll never advocate for war, but as Thomas Jefferson said, "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance"
 
Clearly you are incapable of differentiating facts from propaganda.

Isolationism never caused our entry into either world war. Isolationists don’t get involved in wars halfway around the world.

Isolationism did not cause our entry into WW2, but it did not protect us from the war either. Eventually, we were drawn into the war when we were attacked so isolationism did not work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
Vigilance does not equal war mongering and profiteering. ‘We’ helped destroy Hitler and the Nazis which then paved the way for Communism to fill the void and slaughter tens of millions of innocent people.

There will always be a bully looking to step in and “fill the void.” Letting one bully win is not going to protect us from other bullies. We are seeing that in Russia and our country right now.
 
While I am in favor of Sweden and Finland joining, there are lots of good reasons to worry about making the largest military power in the history of the world even stronger.

Personally, I'd rather see the power reside in more democratic organizations, like the EU and UN.

While I'm sure you can find nice words about rights and democracy in NATO's documents, it is not fundamentally concerned with those values. It's a military organization.

The UN where Russia sits on the security council and has a veto?
 
No one has explained why they feel I'm wrong, because they can't. If you don't know how making it harder to extract and deliver oil raises its price, you need to take an economics class.
You're arguing how restricting supply can raise prices. Sure. Everybody knows that.

But that simply isn't the important issue.

Those fossil fuels need to stay in the ground to the maximum extent possible.

Adding additional infrastructure to make it easier to do what we should not be doing makes no sense whatsoever.
 
The UN where Russia sits on the security council and has a veto?
Yes, the UN should be improved. But the general idea of the UN is vastly superior to that of NATO.

And let's remember that the US basically controls the UN. We almost always get our way in the SC. Sure, Russia and China sometimes eff up our plans, and sometimes they are evil, but we are far from being saints.
 
294153975_1452414528612149_368560711236423138_n.jpg
 
Yes, the UN should be improved. But the general idea of the UN is vastly superior to that of NATO.

And let's remember that the US basically controls the UN. We almost always get our way in the SC. Sure, Russia and China sometimes eff up our plans, and sometimes they are evil, but we are far from being saints.

I don't think we are saints but we don't just get our way in the security council because each member has veto power.

The UN is not useful for any sort of military alliance or defense.

NATO is.
 
Expanding nato should have never happened. All it does is make Russia nervous. Those countries have been invaded so many times they suffer from PTSD.

do Americans really want To risk global thermal nuclear war where maybe a billion people are incinerated over Latvia?

I don’t.
 
I don't think we are saints but we don't just get our way in the security council because each member has veto power.

The UN is not useful for any sort of military alliance or defense.

NATO is.
If you check the SC votes, we do, in fact, get pretty much what we want.

When I was a kid, one of the things we Americans took pride in was that the US had never used its veto in the Security Council. It was the dirty commies who stooped to that level.

It would be interesting to see how often the US, Russia and China have vetoed things in recent years. And what things they vetoed.

There's an interesting chart at this link. Looks like Russia has reclaimed the lead in recent decades.

 
Clearly you are incapable of differentiating facts from propaganda.

Isolationism never caused our entry into either world war. Isolationists don’t get involved in wars halfway around the world.
Jesus, you're a moron. No one is saying isolationists went out and dropped some bombs to start a war. It was our isolationism that allowed the rise of the Axis powers. Much like today, walking away from NATO would only embolden Russia. That's the point of this conversation. If you can't even grasp that, just go away. You're nothing but a troll, anyway. I don't know why I waste my time.
 
Jesus, you're a moron. No one is saying isolationists went out and dropped some bombs to start a war. It was our isolationism that allowed the rise of the Axis powers. Much like today, walking away from NATO would only embolden Russia. That's the point of this conversation. If you can't even grasp that, just go away. You're nothing but a troll, anyway. I don't know why I waste my time.
I think you mean non-interventionalism, which is different than isolationism, though the effect is often the same.
 
This place is comical.

Take Bush, Inc. for example. Both Pappy and Dubya warned of the dangers of isolationism. Which is weird because Prescott Bush was a known financier of the Nazi war machine.

Was he a Nazi? Doubtful. Just a smart man of questionable morality who knew how to play the game. War = $$$$$
 
Expanding nato should have never happened. All it does is make Russia nervous. Those countries have been invaded so many times they suffer from PTSD.

do Americans really want To risk global thermal nuclear war where maybe a billion people are incinerated over Latvia?

I don’t.
Russia is the one that’s been doing the invading.
 
This place is comical.

Take Bush, Inc. for example. Both Pappy and Dubya warned of the dangers of isolationism. Which is weird because Prescott Bush was a known financier of the Nazi war machine.

Was he a Nazi? Doubtful. Just a smart man of questionable morality who knew how to play the game. War = $$$$$
You are such a simpleton. Just because someone is against isolationism (or non-intervention @Finance85) doesn't automatically make them a warhawk. In the Bushes' case, it so happened that they were. But supporting NATO in the face of an aggressive and expansive Russia does not. Not everything is black and white to match your talking points. You have the geopolitical understanding of a 2nd grader.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
Russia is the one that’s been doing the invading.
Napoleon, WWI, and WWII. Your knowledge of history goes all the way back to January?

and for the record I don’t care to risk the incineration of hundreds of millions of people for any foreign country.

Einstein said World War IV would be fought with sticks and stones. Remember that while you are measuring dick length.
 
Last edited:
Finland and Sweden joining NATO is strategically a good move, as long as they have skin in the game. IMO, US taxpayers shouldn't be paying for the defense of countries who aren't willing to defend themselves.

NATO doesn't go around starting wars. The US does, though. We just don't call them wars.
 
You are such a simpleton. Just because someone is against isolationism (or non-intervention @Finance85) doesn't automatically make them a warhawk. In the Bushes' case, it so happened that they were. But supporting NATO in the face of an aggressive and expansive Russia does not. Not everything is black and white to match your talking points. You have the geopolitical understanding of a 2nd grader.
“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world"

“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none."
 
“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world"

“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none."
A. I don't think we should base our foreign policy on a couple quotes from dudes that are over 2 centuries old. This was written when European nations still thought they could control the course of the United States. Both of these men held slaves, they aren't infallible in their thinking.
B. Washington followed up with talk of "temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies." I'd say Russia invading Ukraine meets that definition.
C. In the same speech, Washington also warned against hyper-partisanism between political parties. How are you doing with that part?
D. Jefferson also said, "... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times." It's written on his tomb. Even he realized that every single quote he made shouldn't be used as gospel centuries later.

The worst thing is that you think you're smart because you use the right talking points.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ft254 and RileyHawk
I always thought he was as well. I can't remember who let the cat out of the bag though.

Hmm. Titus a conservative? I've thought he's/he(?) was more of a radical....I can't find a label. Definitely a conspiracy theorist. I don't understand how you categorize Titus as a conservative. Really weird concepts and I'm providing this as an objective contribution.
 
A. I don't think we should base our foreign policy on a couple quotes from dudes that are over 2 centuries old. This was written when European nations still thought they could control the course of the United States. Both of these men held slaves, they aren't infallible in their thinking.
B. Washington followed up with talk of "temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies." I'd say Russia invading Ukraine meets that definition.
C. In the same speech, Washington also warned against hyper-partisanism between political parties. How are you doing with that part?
D. Jefferson also said, "... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times." It's written on his tomb. Even he realized that every single quote he made shouldn't be used as gospel centuries later.

The worst thing is that you think you're smart because you use the right talking points.
“Extraordinary emergencies”. 🤣

What else would bring a bunch of A-list celebs like Sean Penn, Ben Stiller, Angelina Jolie, ad nauseam, right into the center of the hot zone in a war ravaged country for photo ops with macho Comrade Zelenskyy?

Follow the money; it’s ALWAYS the money.
 
“Extraordinary emergencies”. 🤣

What else would bring a bunch of A-list celebs like Sean Penn, Ben Stiller, Angelina Jolie, ad nauseam, right into the center of the hot zone in a war ravaged country for photo ops with macho Comrade Zelenskyy?

Follow the money; it’s ALWAYS the money.
Are you really stupid enough to think Sean Penn is somehow working for the military industrial complex? And are you really saying Zelensky is a communist? You really are a complete imbecile, that doesn't even make sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
Are you really stupid enough to think Sean Penn is somehow working for the military industrial complex? And are you really saying Zelensky is a communist? You really are a complete imbecile, that doesn't even make sense.

You can write a novel, or as I summarized my above response, appropriately to someone incapable of presenting an intelligent debate; dumb!

Now, you will continue with this mullethead for who-knows-how-long and accomplish nothing since it is simple bantering.
 
You can write a novel, or as I summarized my above response, appropriately to someone incapable of presenting an intelligent debate; dumb!

Now, you will continue with this mullethead for who-knows-how-long and accomplish nothing since it is simple bantering.
Meh, that's why I come onto HORT sometimes. In my professional life I'm not allowed to berate idiots.
 
ADVERTISEMENT